create_worktree

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'ephemeral' without explaining what that entails—e.g., whether it creates a new branch, checks out the worktree, or requires cleanup. Side effects and lifecycle are undisclosed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence, immediately front-loaded with the verb and resource. It contains zero unnecessary words and delivers a concise, clear statement of purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must compensate. It fails to explain the worktree lifecycle, naming conventions, or the relationship to the 'task' parameter. For a side-effect-rich tool like git worktree creation, this is insufficient context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters. The description adds no param-specific meaning beyond stating the purpose. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents task and base_branch with defaults.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'creates', the resource 'git worktree', and the purpose 'isolated feature development'. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like abort_worktree and cleanup_worktree by focusing on creation and ephemerality.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for feature development but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like start_feature or worktree_status.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.